It’s situations like this that prompt blogger Thomas Peters (@AmericanPapist) to consider attempts to “silence and marginalize” conservatives and people of faith as the number one threat to the conservative movement.

A southern California native, Peters now resides in D.C. He grew up in a conservative Catholic household, and attended Ave Maria College in Michigan. He then earned his M.A. in Theology at Sacred Heart Seminary, where he began blogging.

“I found it a nice change of pace from my homework,” he said.

What began as commentary on the Catholic Church grew political as Peters moved to the nation’s capital and started his second Master’s at the Dominican House of Studies. Two years and 17,000 tweets later, he’s a seasoned blogger, writing on his American Papist blog at CatholicVote.org. He’s also a speaker and political activist, making a splash in the social conservative movement.

“Social media is essential for keeping a tight-knit online community of experts and activists,” Peters said, adding, “It’s a very immediate way to keep supporters informed.”

As a dedicated social conservative, Peters closely follows Steve Ertelt (@StevenErtelt) of LifeNews.com, pro-life activist Jill Stanek (@JillStanek), and the Washington Examiner’s David Freddoso (@Freddoso) and Timothy Carney (@TPCarney) for all things newsworthy.

“I actually enjoy following a few left-wing activists because it’s important to know what both sides are thinking in real-time,” he added. Among them: Daily Kos (@DailyKos), The Advocate (@TheAdvocateMag) and Amanda Marcotte (@AmandaMarcotte).

Social media is more than just a way to find news and self-promote, and Peters is one of a handful of conservatives who have successfully initiated and organized Twitter campaigns to get conservative issues trending. During the 2012 March for Life, followers retweeted him hundreds of times.

In addition to blogging, Peters works at the National Organization for Marriage where he is overseeing a project to identify and encourage young activists who are pro-marriage.

Marriage could be a big issue this year, with a number of states – like Washington and Maryland – considering legislation to legalize gay marriage. Other states, including Minnesota and North Carolina, are trying to add traditional marriage to the state constitution.

As part of his work for NOM, Peters travels the country speaking to young people, and teaching them how to defend their views.

“We have to work hard at understanding our own conservative principles so we are better equipped to defend and promote them,” He said.

And social media is key, he noted, “It contributes to a more robust and free democracy.”

Comments

Comments

In their lengthy quest for public affirmation, for what they call marriage “equality” and for legitimization of their perverted and socially unacceptable lifestyle, homosexuals often ask, if not marriage, what should gay couples do when they love each other and want to enter into committed relationships, especially when marriage is the most widely used expression of love between two people? So far, apparently, traditional values advocates, the conservative wing of the Republican Party, and others who oppose their sordid agenda have no answer. It should first be pointed out, however, that pre-pubescent girls all over the country may idolize Justin Bieber, but we don’t hand out marriage licenses to children just because they are capable of emotional feelings. Another question homosexuals often ask is, “are we to be condemned for loving?” Neither society nor religious principles condemns them for loving. They, like everybody else, can love anybody they want. The condemnation, however, comes from engaging in sexual congress with people of their same gender. Albeit a tagline coined in the War on Drugs, society has simply lost the ability – or the spine – to “just say no”, especially in the socio-moral war against sexual perversion that is progressively corrupting our country and our most sacred traditions and whose strategy, sadly, includes targeting children.

Hoping to condition a whole generation of people whose attitudes toward the practice of same sex relations, the pro-homosexual lobby wants school children to be brainwashed about homosexuals. In California, they have forced it into the education system just like they have forced their way into everything else; i.e., with lawyers, a lot of noise, the help of sympathetic, naive, spineless jurists, quoting inapplicable legal predicates, ultra rich supporters funding them, and by strategically placing gays into the body politic. If a subject, even a disgusting one, is tossed into the public eye long enough and often enough, LGBT seems to think it will become so commonplace it will ultimately be accepted as main stream. They are also intent on investing into the school systems curricula designed to put the most favorable spin on the contributions made to society by homosexuals as though that is a magic wand for normalizing the abnormal.

There is no doubting that homosexuals are, first of all, people. But they are people with mental aberrations manifested in their choice of sexual partners and the sexual theater in which they find themselves most comfortable. People with a brain or a decent measure of skills are always able to make contributions to society, if they choose to do so. However, the nature of a person’s work and/or societal contributions has very little to do with their sex lives (unless they are sex workers). In other words, the contributions of people like Walt Whitman or Oscar Wilde resulted from their literary skills, not from their sexual practices, so their contributions to the literary world prove nothing and provide nothing more than a straw man argument about the value of homosexuals or homosexuality. As to contributions, though, Jeffrey Dahmer was at one time an army medic, a noble profession and one in which he must have made honorable contributions. But that doesn’t erase what he was beneath the surface.

In the interest of fair and balanced reporting, if California educators are forced by homosexual legislators or lobbyists to teach gay history and the contributions to society made by mentally abnormal people, the list should also include those who have made contributions because of, not in spite of, their sexual perversions, the substance of which is their socially detrimental behavior; e.g., openly gay soldier, Bradley Manning, who gave hundreds of thousands of secret documents to Wikileaks, putting at serious risk his country’s security, national image, and diplomatic relations with allies, because he got upset over a break up with his homosexual lover. Then there is the case of Ottis Toole, a homosexual who decapitated six-year-old Adam Walsh. And, if homosexuals could manage to flaunt their role models without cherry picking their ranks, they might look to a gay business man who was a war veteran, a graduate of Northwestern Business University, who rubbed elbows with the likes of First Lady, Rosalynn Carter. He was financially well off, and worked tirelessly in community projects. On the surface, he sounds like a model citizen and one the gay lobbyists would be proud to offer up as a role model who made significant contributions to society, but it’s doubtful the rest of the story would be revealed about him in California schools if positive spin is the central goal, because this homosexual was serial killer, John Wayne Gacy.
Some research seems to indicate that, among serial killers, whose brains obviously do not function the way a normal brain does, homosexuals (whose brains likewise do not function the way a normal brain does) own a disproportionate share of such crimes compared to their representation within the total population. Considering the observations of forensic pathologists, Bernard Knight (professor of forensic psychology, University of Wales) and Pekka Saukko (head of forensic medicine, University of Turku, Finland), some of the most violent and gruesome murders happen among homosexual males, so there is no surprise at the statistics concerning serial killers. As another point of fact, according to the American College of Pediatricians, which cites several studies, violence among homosexual couples is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples. Sadly, though, homosexuality as a mental condition was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association. Until 1973, homosexuality was at the top of the list of sexual deviations (paraphilias) under Section 302 of the DSM. Whether scientists removed homosexuals unilaterally or justifiably, or whether as some claim, it was a more political move that resulted from bullying, bribing, or defrauding and the APA yielded to political pressure, the net result is that the decision shot homosexuals in the foot. An appropriate code is not now available to practitioners of the healing arts to diagnose or report the condition, develop a therapeutic plan, or get insurance to pay for treatment of those who want to abandon this modern plague.

Homosexuals loathed the label medical science put on them, but then hell hates holy water. Regardless, they didn’t want to think of themselves as mentally abnormal. So, they decided to change the way society looked at them rather than try to abandon the practice. In reality, however, we could call a skunk a rose, but that wouldn’t make it smell any sweeter. Gay activists often claim that their sexual deviation is a matter of choice which can’t be treated. The gay community even does its best to sugar coat their behavior by toning down descriptive terms and euphemizing homosexuality as an “alternative lifestyle.” This certainly sounds less threatening and less offensive, especially considering their strategy of keeping same sex relationships in the public eye, whether through the educational system or the entertainment media. The light-hearted and funny characters on Will and Grace, though, are far afield from the Andrew Cunanans in their midst.

And now the 9th circuit court of appeals has ruled California’s law against same sex marriage is unconstitutional with the reasoning of the three judges seeming to be no more than judicial pandering to political correctness rather than legally sound justice. The first thing American courts should have to decide in the case of gay marriage is whether marriage is a right. If it is, gays might have standing to bring a case, but there would then have to be sweeping reform of marriage laws in all fifty states. If marriage is not a right, then gays have no claim that denying them a marriage license is unconstitutional. The gay marriage cases to date have all leaned on the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause. However, Cornell University School of Law says that the equal protection clause doesn’t guarantee individual liberties; it demands equal application of the law. Thus, in states in which same sex couples do not qualify for marriage licenses any more than deaf mutes qualify for pilot’s licenses, if homosexual and heterosexual same gender couples are denied marriage licenses for the same reason (that same gender couples may not marry), there is no discrimination against homosexuals. Moreover, parroting Judge Vaughn Walker’s statement, the court said Prop 8 enshrines in law that same sex couples are inferior to heterosexual couples, which is a matter of conjecture more than a matter of law. Nothing in California’s law said or implied anything about superiority or inferiority. A blind man may not qualify for a driver’s license, but that doesn’t mean the state is discriminating against the disabled or that the applicant is inferior. It is simply common sense and good judgment.

There is no issue of equality in respect to homosexuals and marriage. Marriage is not a right. If marriage was a right, then brothers and sisters or other close relatives could marry, the idea of in-breeding wouldn’t be so socially explosive, so Jerry Springer might have to find another career. A fairly profitable industry could be set up for U.S. citizens to marry foreigners who had enough money to hire temporary spouses and, hence, get a leg up on immigration. If there were no marriage laws regulating the practice, Mormons and Muslims would be able to have as many wives as they could manage to feed. But, thankfully, marriage is regulated in many common sense ways that have nothing to do with homosexuals, sexual orientation, gender confusion, or abnormal people claiming they want to enter “committed, loving relationships” with marriage as the only avenue of approach they will accept. Clearly, nobody has to be married to engage in sexual congress or to enter into loving, committed relationships and live happily ever after. Free love made the pill necessary and, as it happens, made it possible. For many years, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie have quite publicly been living and breeding together without benefit of clergy. The notion that gays want a marriage license is not likely the real issue, though. What is printed on a piece of paper in a scrapbook at a very well-decorated home would more likely be a symbol of victory over morality, over the laws of God and over traditional values than a life affirming emblem. But, in the final analysis, a question begging for an answer is: who benefits most from the corruption of human morals and who has been engineering that corruption for thousands of years? Answer that and the roots of homosexuality may may be more transparent.